Does NV Energy & the NV Public Utilities Commissioners have an agenda against the developing fetus?

NV Public Utilities Commissioners placing the unborn fetus at risk for preventable health concerns, by approving installation of smart meters.

PRLog - March 20, 2012 - LAS VEGAS -- With all the hyperbole from NV Energy (NVE) about the safety and no health effects of their smart meters, it begs further scrutiny.

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC), being completely myopic over anything that produces negative independent research on smart meters, their ability to be neutral is basically non-existent.

The PUC has blindly accepted any and all highly filtered information from NVE, even when the health and safety of the developing fetus is at stake.

According to the PUC’s Hearing Master, Nancy Wenzel, a "hearing" is a "battle of experts". The problem with this statement is that the PUC seems to have imaginary opponent experts in this "battle", as the only “experts” they allowed were from NVE.

Wenzel disallowed any type of rebuttal expert witness/es for a period exceeding five (5) minutes. While she graciously accommodated NVE with their experts rambling on with skewed, cherry picked “testimony”. When questioned, Wenzel stated “we are giving you as much time, even more time then they had.” Which encompassed the total time that the public had for commenting on this issue.

Problem with Wenzel’s highly flawed attempt at appearing “neutral”, five (5) minutes per person does not equate to an unlimited testimony by an expert, such as she permitted NVE, during the December, 2011 hearing.

When NVE’s “expert” Dr. Bailey, a Ph.D., in neuro-psychology “attempted” to testify, he concertedly neglected to mention that his firm, Exponent, is a paid products defense firm that “creates” science to “fit” whatever the client “needs”.

Bailey stated that he is an “editor” and reviews journal articles and that there was no proof of any adverse health effects of any type of radiation at the levels that the public is exposed to, especially the levels from smart meters. How he missed the peer reviewed article from six (6) months prior, “Maternal Exposure to Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy in Relation to the Risk of Asthma in Offspring”, [1], that stated: “Our findings provide new epidemiological evidence that high maternal MF levels in pregnancy may increase the risk of asthma in offspring.”, one can only speculate, that it wasn’t going to “benefit” their client.

When Commissioners Burtenshaw, Noble and Wagner were provided with that peer reviewed, 13 year study on the effects of magnetic fields upon the developing fetus and the correlation of asthma, they intentionally chose to disregard the findings, while contemplating their ruling on smart meters.

Exponent is the same firm that testified that pesticides and Parkinson’s have no relationship, that asbestos is not harmful, as referenced in the chapter entitled “The Enronization of Science”, in the book, “Doubt is their product-How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health” by David Michaels.[2] Michaels is currently the United States Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

On March 15, 2012, the Yale School of Medicine issued a report stating: “”This is the first experimental evidence that fetal exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones does in fact affect adult behavior,” said senior author Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, professor and chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences.”[3] Along with “Taylor attributed the behavioral changes to an effect during pregnancy on the development of neurons in the prefrontal cortex region of the brain.”

The Commissioners were sent a copy of this research in an email dated March 17, 2012. Therefore, negating any possibility that they can feign plausible deniability, regarding the health effects of radio frequency radiation upon the developing fetus.

Since the PUC is refusing to err on the side of science and or caution, they decided to accept the hyperbole from a products defense firm, that has a highly questionable and discredited past. The Commissioners it appears, have no concern or regard for the health, safety and welfare of the developing fetus.

It appears that there could be some charges of malfeasance in their futures. As their “approach” on this issue, appears to possibly violate some ethics/fiduciary duty, that one would ascribe to their position as representatives of a regulatory agency.

The rulings displayed by the Commissioners, gives one the perception, that an innocent, unborn child should be brought into the world with preventable health concerns, which is well beyond any rational person's comprehension.